Ram Kamal Goyal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Cbi/Acb, Lko.
2022 Latest Caselaw 14547 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1742 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Kamal Goyal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Cbi/Acb, Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh,Shiv P. Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short C.B.I.).

The name of the present applicant is Raj Kamal Goyal and this application has also been filed in the same name but it has wrongly been transcribed in the record of the Court as Ram Kamal Goyal, so the applicant shall be named as Raj Kamal Goyal.

This is the third anticipatory bail application of the present applicant. The first anticipatory bail application of the present applicant bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No.12625 of 2021 has been rejected as not pressed by this Court (Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.) vide order dated 02.11.2021 and the second anticipatory bail application of the present applicant bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No.13396 of 2021 has been dismissed as not maintainability by this Court (Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.) vide order dated 06.12.2021. Both the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications have been rejected by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J, who is not sitting at Lucknow, therefore, this third anticipatory bail application has been put up before the regular Court in terms of order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed on administrative side.

This third anticipatory bail application has been filed by the present applicant (Raj Kamal Goyal) apprehending his arrest in Criminal Case No.252 of 2017 (State through CBI vs. Gaya Prasad Gautam and others), Case Reference R.C.0062014-A0009 of C.B.I/ACB/Lucknow, under Sections 409, 420, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and Sections 120-B r/w Sections 409, 420, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and Sections 120-B r/w Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the court of learned Special Judge C.B.I., Court No.6, Lucknow.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

At the very outset, Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has raised objection regarding maintainability of this anticipatory bail application by submitting that this being third anticipatory bail application and the second anticipatory bail application has been rejected treating the same as not maintainable, therefore, this application is also not maintainable.

Sri Shukla has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of Apex Court dated 28.01.2021 rendered in re: G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 213 of 2021) whereby the Apex Court has held that the successive anticipatory bail application ought not to be entertained. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced here-in-below:

"As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No.2) is absconding and not co-operating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge."

On that, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that by means of both the rejection orders the merits of the case has not been examined. As no findings of any kind whatsoever have been given while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications. Therefore, the judgment of Apex Court in re: G.R. Ananda Babu (supra) would not be applicable in the present case as the Apex Court has held that if the anticipatory bail application has been rejected by speaking order then the successive anticipatory bail application ought not to be entertained.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that after rejection of the second anticipatory bail application on 06.12.2021, one co-accused who is identically placed with the present applicant, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No.178 of 2022. The present applicant is said to be supplier of the goods in question whereas the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Goel, who has been granted anticipatory bail, is also said to be supplier of the goods in question. The allegations against both the persons are identically the same, therefore, he has submitted that after rejection of the first or second anticipatory bail application of the present applicant without interning the merits of that case and the co-accused whose role and allegations are identically the same has been granted anticipatory bail, this may be considered as a fresh ground.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and the present applicant is willing to participate in the trial proceedings properly in the same manner as he has participated in the investigation proceedings. However, on 23.09.2022 the learned trial court has issued non-bailable warrant against the present applicant but the same has not been served upon him. Therefore, the liberty of the present applicant may be protected till conclusion of trial proceedings.

Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that since the present applicant is not participating in the trial proceedings, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that both the anticipatory bail applications of the present applicant have been rejected in limini without interning into merits of the issue, after rejection of his second anticipatory bail application on 06.12.2021, the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Goel has been granted anticipatory bail on 21.03.2022, which may be considered as new ground, the charge-sheet has been filed and till filing of the charge-sheet the present applicant is said to have co-operated in the investigation, now he is willing to participate in the trial proceedings, therefore, considering the aforesaid subsequent development, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till conclusion of trial proceedings in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant (Raj Kamal Goyal) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till conclusion of trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

1. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted;

2. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

3. that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

4. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial;

5. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

6. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, without adjourning the case for any unnecessary reason. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly.

In view of the aforesaid terms, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.

Order Date :- 20.10.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

Suresh/